Untitled

Pichappan, Pit; Sarasvady, S.

doi:10.1023/a:1016070029935

Cited by 47 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 18 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…It may be noted that where excessive self-citations are regarded as an abuse (Lawani 1982;Martyn 1975), their prevalence in fair number is perceived as normal (Aksnes 2003) and even commendable, if only to avoid the repetition of already published information (Macdonald and Kam 2011). Authors have mostly studied self-citations in specific subject fields, such as Plant Physiology and Neurobiology (Tagliacozzo 1977); Library and Information Science (Dimitroff and Arlitsch 1995;Shah, Gul and Gaur 2015); Ecology (Pichappan and Sarasvady 2002); Diabetes Mellitus (Gami et al 2004); General Medicine (Kulkarni et al 2011); Otolaryngology (Tolisano, Song and Cable 2015), and have mostly examined self-citations with regard to their frequency in an article (the number of times they occur in an article).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Thus, the current study is based on the results of nonparametric tests, using Spearman's correlation and Mann-Whitney U statistics. Studies have shown that with the increase in the number of authors, share of self-citations also increases (Davarpanah and Amel 2009;Falagas and Kavvadia 2006;Glänzel 2002;Pichappan and Sarasvady 2002;Van Raan 1998). As per Costas, Leeuwen and Bordon (2010) each author comes with his share of expertise and past research experiences, and this more or less translates to additional self-citations.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

“…In the Ecological journal -Oecologia, Leimu and Koricheva (2005) also observed the same trend. Davarpanah and Amel (2009) Pichappan and Sarasvady (2002) observed that the proportion of both synchronous and diachronous self-citations increases with the increase in the number of authors. Tolisano, Song and Cable (2015) observed that the last researcher in the author list of collaborative works are more frequent self-citers and are more likely than lead authors to cite themselves.…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

The prevalence of synchronous self-citation practices at the institutional level

Gul

Shah

Shafiq

2017

MJLIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Self-citation behaviour of authors affiliated to an institution was Statistically positive correlation is observed between number of co-authors and number of self-citations (p<.01). Inter-institutional collaborative works attract more self-citations than works of intra-institutional efforts (p<.01). Significant positive correlation exists between authors' productivity and share of self-citations (p<.01). Regarding the currency of selfcitations, authors tend to cite more of their recent works than the works of others. Articles published in Journal Citation Reports (JCR) indexed sources have more number of self-citations than articles published in JCR excluded sources (p<.01).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 96%

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

The prevalence of synchronous self-citation practices at the institutional level

Gul

Shah

Shafiq

2017

MJLIS

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…In as far as Information Science is concerned, self-citations are deemed a natural, regular and indispensable part of scientific communication, since they reflect the continuous and cumulative nature of the research process (Pichappan and Sarasvady 2002). However, in evaluative bibliometrics, self-citations are often regarded as distortions that affect the validity of citations as measures of scientific impact (Schubert et al 2006) on the grounds that they do not reveal anything about the impact of a work beyond their own producers.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper focuses on the study of self-citations at the meso and micro (individual) levels, on the basis of an analysis of the production (1994–2004) of individual researchers working at the Spanish CSIC in the areas of Biology and Biomedicine and Material Sciences. Two different types of self-citations are described: author self-citations (citations received from the author him/herself) and co-author self-citations (citations received from the researchers’ co-authors but without his/her participation). Self-citations do not play a decisive role in the high citation scores of documents either at the individual or at the meso level, which are mainly due to external citations. At micro-level, the percentage of self-citations does not change by professional rank or age, but differences in the relative weight of author and co-author self-citations have been found. The percentage of co-author self-citations tends to decrease with age and professional rank while the percentage of author self-citations shows the opposite trend. Suppressing author self-citations from citation counts to prevent overblown self-citation practices may result in a higher reduction of citation numbers of old scientists and, particularly, of those in the highest categories. Author and co-author self-citations provide valuable information on the scientific communication process, but external citations are the most relevant for evaluative purposes. As a final recommendation, studies considering self-citations at the individual level should make clear whether author or total self-citations are used as these can affect researchers differently.

show abstract

“…Self-citation is a practice in which authors cite their previous work. Authors use selfcitations for multiple reasons: to increase visibility of their own work, to add further elements to earlier work, to render previous work more valid, or to establish a form of authority within a specific area (Fowler & Aksnes, 2007;Pichappan & Sarasvady, 2002).…”

Section: Self-citation Behaviourmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cross‐cultural differences in self‐promotion: A study of self‐citations in management journals

Deschacht

Maes

2016

J Occupat & Organ Psyc

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We study cross‐cultural differences in self‐promotion by comparing the self‐citation behaviour of scholarly authors originating from individualist and collectivist cultures, using original data on 1,346 journal articles published between 2009 and 2014 in the fields of Management and Business. Our main finding is that articles by authors from individualist cultures are about twice as likely to contain many self‐citations. Our results confirm the presence of a gender gap in self‐citations, but we show that this effect is smaller than the cultural effect and that the effect appears to be stable across cultures. These findings show that the structure of rewards and costs associated with particular self‐promotion tactics differ from culture to culture. Implications of cultural variations in self‐promotion are discussed. Practitioner points We develop theory and provide empirical evidence about cultural and gender differences in self‐promoting behaviour. As the workforce diversifies, a broader awareness of these differences might affect the actions of both employees and HR departments.

show abstract

Untitled

Cited by 47 publications

References 18 publications

The prevalence of synchronous self-citation practices at the institutional level

The prevalence of synchronous self-citation practices at the institutional level

Self-citations at the meso and individual levels: effects of different calculation methods

Cross‐cultural differences in self‐promotion: A study of self‐citations in management journals

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About